G. R. No. L-7593. December 24, 1957

Appeal from a decision  of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac dated January 7, 1954, setting aside the previous Order dated December 16, 1953, which had admitted a contingent  claim filed by petitioners-appellants but  denied a petition to set aside  an  amount to answer for the contingent claim.

The record discloses that on December 15, 1953, petitioners  herein filed  a  contingent  claim for more than P500,000 against the intestate estate of the deceased spouses Florencio P.  Buan and Rizalina Paras Buan.  The contingent claim was based on the fact that on August 3, 1952, a Philippine Rabbit  Bus, owned and operated by the deceased spouses Buan, collided with a car in which Juan C. Laya, Bodolfo Escosa, Jose S. Palma,  and Juan  de Leon, were  riding; that the collision was caused by the fact that the driver of the bus managed and drove the vehicle in a negligent manner;  that as a consequence of the collision Juan  C. Laya was  killed and  his companions suffered physical injuries.  The  driver of  the  bus  was Ernesto Triguero, and he was charged with homicide and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence and was sentenced therefor.  The heirs of Juan C. Laya, petitioners herein,  reserved the  civil action for damages, and on October 12, 1953, they filed an independent civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the administrator of the deceased spouses  Buan.  The petition for the admission of a contingent claim was acompanied with a copy of the  complaint filed in  the civil  case above-mentioned (No.  20867,  CFI Manila)  and a sentence in the criminal case filed  against Ernesto Triguero, driver of the Philippine Rabbit Bus.

When the  administrators learned of  the filing  of the contingent claim in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, they filed  an opposition thereto on the ground that the game was  not filed before the death of the spousea Florencio Buan and Rizalina Paras Buan,  which  took place on January 3, 1953, and that it was also not filed within the period prescribed by Rule 89, Section  4  of the Rules of Court. The Court of First Instance of  Tarlac admitted the claim in an order dated December 16, 1953, but denied the prayer that a portion of the estate be set aside to  respond for the amount of the contingent.  Counsel for the administrators then moved  to  set aside the order.  In an  order  dated November 25, 1953, Judge Agustin P.  Montesa, sitting as Judge for the Court of First Instance of Manila, held that the civil action filed in Manila by  the  heirs of Laya, petitioners herein, Civil Case  No. 20867,  was  premature because the sentence of  conviction of the driver of the bus had not become final.   The court also ordered the plaintiffs to amend  their complaint within 10 days.  Thereupon, the plaintiffs in said civil case (C.F.I. Manila, No. 20867) filed an amended  complaint, dated December 18, 1953.

In the meantime and on January 7, 1954, the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, on a motion for reconsideration filed by the administrators dated January 2, 1954, set aside its previous  order of  December 16, 1953,  admitting the contingent claim of petitioners.  The  reason for the admission of the claim,  according to the court,  had ceased to exist and  even if plaintiffs had filed the amended complaint in the Court of  First Instance of Manila, the same has not yet been acted upon by  the said court.  A motion to reconsider this, order of the Court of First  Instance of Tarlac having been denied, petitioners have prosecuted this appeal to  Us.

A consideration of  the facts and the proceedings set forth above will readily show that the order of the  Court of First Instance of Tariac dismissing the contingent claim is based on incorrect and erroneous conception of a contingent claim.  A contingent claim ia one which, by its nature, is necessarily dependent upon an  uncertain event for its existence or validity.  It may or  may not  develop into  a valid enforceable claim, and its validity and enforceability depending  upon  an  uncertain event.   (E.  Gaskell &  Co. vs. Tan Sit, 43  Phil. 810, 813; 2 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,  1957 edition, pp. 425-426.)

“A  contingent claim’ against an  estate within  the  statute providing for the settlement hereof, as one where the absolute  liability depends on some future event which may never happen, and which therefore renders such liability  uncertain and indeterminable. * *  *! It is where the liability depends on some future event  after the debtor’s death which may or may not happen, and therefore makes Words  and Phrases, p. 113.)

“A ‘contingent claim’ against an estate is one in which liability depends on some future event which may or  may not occur, so that duty to pay may  never become absolute.”   (In  Re Flewell,  276 N. W.  YS2, 733;  9 Words and Thrases, p. 114.)

Whether or not the heirs  of the  deceased, Juan C. Laya, would succeed in the action brought in Manila against the administrators of the estate of the deceased  spouses Florencio Buan and Rizalina P. Buan, is the uncertain event or contingency upon which the validity of  the  claim presented in the administration proceedings depends.   While the said action  has not yet been finally decided or determined to the effect that the  petitioners herein, heirs of the deceased Juan C. Laya, have no right of action against the estate of the deceased spouses Florencio P.  Buan and  Rizalina P. Buan, the contingent claim that petitioners have filed in the Court of First Instance of Tariac  in the proceedings for the administration of the deceased  spouses Florencio P. Buan and Rizalina P. Buan, may not be dismissed. The order of the court dismissing  the claim and declaring that the same  may again be entertained if  another valid complaint by the petitioners herein is filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, is inconsistent with the nature and character of a contingent claim.  A  contingent claim does not follow the temporary orders of dismissal of an action upon which it is based; it awaits the final outcome thereof and only said final result can cause its termination. The rules provide that a contingent claim is to tie presented in the  administration proceedings  in  the  same manner  as any ordinary claim,  and  that when  the contingency arises which  converts the  contingent claim  into a  valid claim, the  court should then be  informed that the claim had already matured.  (Secs. 5,  9,  Rule  87.)  The order of the court subject of  the appeal should,  therefore, be set aside.

The first order of the court admitted the claim but denied the petition for  the setting aside of a certain amount from the estate ‘to respond therefor.   The validity of the  contingent claim is apparent; as the driver of the bus belonging to the deceased spouses, Florencio P. Buan and Rizalina P. Buan, was found guilty of negligence, as a  result of which Juan C. Laya died,  the  said deceased  spouses—the employers  of the  driver—can  be  made  responsible, as masters of  a  servant, for damages for the death of the petitioner’s father.   A portion of the estate should, there- fore,  be set aside to respond for sued damages as  petitioners herein may subsequently recover in the action  that they have brought in the Court of First Instance of  Manila.  This amount should  be fixed in the court below.

For the foregoing considerations, the order of  the.court dismissing  the contingent claim filed by petitioners is hereby set aside.  It is hereby ordered that the claim be allowed to continue, and it is further  ordered  that  the  court fix an amount that may be set aside to respond for the damages that the petitioners herein may ultimately recover.   Costs against the respondents.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion., Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix,  JJ.,  concur.